Jimmy Aikin- Star of Bethlehem

1,267 Views | 8 Replies | Last: 7 yr ago by 94chem
booboo91
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I am huge fan of Jimmy Aikin- "Encyclopedia Brown" of the Bible. Recently read a magazine article from Jimmy on the Star of Bethlehem. He pointed out a few things that I had not noticed or contemplated:

1) In the Gospel of Matthew- The magi from the East first went to Jerusalem (after seeing sign of a star in the sky), to visit King Herod, it was King Herod and his advisors that provided the details on Bethlehem. The Magi then took the short trip to Bethlehem (less than 5 miles). The star stopped over place where Jesus laid.

2) Very common in ancient times to look at stars as signs. The star was viewed as new born king, so they went to current king Herod and asked about the new king.

3) Documented cases of Magi going to Rome- 66AD to pay homage to Nero. Documented birth of King Mirthridates 6 of Pontus in 134 BC was accompanied by a comet (they took it as a sign).

4) Jimmy goes on to speculate on timing of Jesus birth 7-2 BC, early church sources have it at 2-3 BC.

5) Jimmy goes through options for stars: Not a meteor, Nova/SuperNova, Comet, Conjunction (2 planets align or star and planet align- these don't move the same way stars move across sky with earth's orbit)

Summary- not enough evidence to conclude exactly what happened. But what bible says is very reasonable, not farfetched.

Jimmy Aiken- Star Article-similar article- not the same
Sapper Redux
How long do you want to ignore this user?
What is said is in one book, and one of the last written books of the Gospels. I know there are many theories about the star and it's important to some folks. So be it. If you want to believe it, believe it, but the evidence will always be weak.
Frok
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Still think Rick Larsen has the best presentation on this. Planets appear as stars in the sky and they move amongst the stars.
booboo91
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Dr. Watson said:

What is said is in one book, and one of the last written books of the Gospels. I know there are many theories about the star and it's important to some folks. So be it. If you want to believe it, believe it, but the evidence will always be weak.
To clarify:

1) We have had other posts on this, and many had stated the star of Bethlehem was impossible- There was No way this could happen. As Jimmy pointed out, not unreasonable claim, when you read the scriptures.

Will also point out- that once realize you realize there is a God, and that Jesus rose from the dead- pretty easy to understand. If you miss that God/Designer/Intelligence exists- then can easily understand how you doubt this.

2) As you know, There are (2) Gospels written on birth of Jesus. Matt (written from Joseph's perspective ), this was thought of as the 1st Gospel written by early church, today scholars tend to think it was 2nd. and Luke (written from Mary's perspective) -thought of as the 3rd Gospel, most seem to agree gospel of John was the last.

3) I agree not a lot of evidence- we don't have it on video. It was 2000 years ago, there is scant physical evidence left for most things and even Jesus being alive.

booboo91
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Frok said:

Still think Rick Larsen has the best presentation on this. Planets appear as stars in the sky and they move amongst the stars.
That is what Jimmy put as the most likely scenario- Conjunction. But left it very open.
Pro Sandy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
We watched Rick Larson's presentation in my Sunday school class couple of weeks ago. Most convincing case I've seen.

And when he goes to the day of the cross... I get goose bumps
94chem
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Rick Larson's hypothesis, which I admire, is completely dependent upon the erroneous dating of Herod's death, which occurred in 1 BC, rather than 4 BC, iirc. Larson says that a copyist error put the death in the wrong year. Correct?

Pro Sandy, as interesting as Larson's hypothesis about the crucifixion is, he misses an astoundingly simple fact - the gospels in no way support a Friday crucifixion. It was either on a Wed. or a Thurs.
booboo91
How long do you want to ignore this user?
94chem said:

Rick Larson's hypothesis, which I admire, is completely dependent upon the erroneous dating of Herod's death, which occurred in 1 BC, rather than 4 BC, iirc. Larson says that a copyist error put the death in the wrong year. Correct?

Pro Sandy, as interesting as Larson's hypothesis about the crucifixion is, he misses an astoundingly simple fact - the gospels in no way support a Friday crucifixion. It was either on a Wed. or a Thurs.
Catholic church maintains Friday is the day of crucifixion. Here are some comments on the discrepency (Gospel of John- which does not cover the last supper has it different from the other Gospels). If you want more details read the entire articles.

1) Though a strict observance of the date of Passover would have had "the day of preparation" to be on Thursday, the fourteenth of Nisan, the common practice of the day was similar to modern practice in the Church. Feasts could be, and often were, moved to the closest Sabbath. Thus, "the day of preparation," when the lambs were actually slain would have been Friday, rather than Thursday. Thus, Christ would have been crucified on Friday, "the day of preparation" (cf. Matt. 27:62). In my article, I did not have the space to get into precisely how the apostles could have celebrated the Passover if there were no sacrificed lambs to use for the liturgical observance. Pope Benedict XVI, in his above-mentioned Holy Thursday homily, actually gives a very plausible, though not definitive, answer to that question. He argues: "Consequently, Jesus celebrated the Passover without a lambno, not without a lamb: instead of the lamb he gave himself, his body and his blood."

2) According to The Navarre Study Bible, in Mark's Gospel the Pharisees and Sadducees had a different way of celebrating feast days (51-52). The Pharisees were strict in their observance. If the fifteenth of Nisan fell on Friday, then that would be the day they celebrated the Passover. The Sadducees, on the other hand, were more liberal and had no problem with moving a feast day in certain situations. This practice is analogous to our modern practice of moving some feast days to Sunday when they actually occur during the week (as is commonly practiced with the feast of the Epiphany). It could also be likened to the bishops declaring a holy day not obligatory because of the day upon which it happens to fall. For example, if a holy day falls on a Friday, the bishops will sometimes dispense Catholics from the obligation of attending Mass on that particular holy day for that year.

What does all of this mean? When Jesus actually celebrated the Passover, he did it in the traditional way of the Pharisees. That is what we see in the synoptic Gospels. With the Pharisees, Jesus kept the Passover strictly in accord with what Moses said in Ex. 12. However, when John wrote about Christ's passion, he does not put the emphasis on the Lord's Supper that the synoptic Gospel writers do. In fact, he does not mention the Lord's Supper at all. He emphasizes the crucifixion. Only in passing, as he describes the activity of the day, does John mention that it was "the day of preparation." John was not speaking of the practice of Jesus and the apostles; he was speaking of the practice of the Sadducees, who had a large number of priests in their camp and great influence in the culture at the time. This fact explains why John calls Friday the "day of preparation" instead of Thursday. The Sadducees, who moved the Passover to Saturday, celebrated the day of preparation on Friday, rather than on Thursday as Jesus and the apostles did.


Here are (2) different Articles on this- they provide similar answers:

Catholic Answers- Passover Discrepency

Catholic Answers- Good Thursday?

Pro Sandy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
From Larson's website:

Quote:

Some believe that Christ died on a day other than Friday. Can the star signs be reconciled with these points of view?
Quote:


Strong minds have considered Christ's Friday death. While there is good agreement on the point, there are also strong minority opinions. These minority opinions are usually based upon the Sign of Jonah, the Jewish festival calendar and/or the High Sabbath. Some contend that Christ died on Wednesday. Others are persuaded he died on Thursday. These points of view are based upon earnest analysis from a single angle and are not to be dismissed lightly.

However, what happened in the sky cannot be adjusted to accommodate argument or theological reasoning. Events in the sky are simple facts. They cannot be bumped a day or two. The lunar eclipse predicted by Joel and observed by Peter did not happen on Wednesday or Thursday. It happened on Friday.
An obvious solution to this conflict is to ignore the celestial events in favor of one's preferred analysis. The other solution is to reanalyze one's position to include what happened in the sky.
Here are two excellent, balanced resources for those who wish to explore the day of the week of Christ's death in more depth:
  • The Handbook of Biblical Chronology, Jack Finegan (Revised Edition; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 1998) ISBN 1-56563-143-9
  • Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ, Harold W. Hoehner (Grand Rapids: Academie Books, 1977) ISBN 0-310-26211-9


94chem
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Matt. 28:1 reads "Sabbaths" in the original language, but was changed to the singular by translators.
Refresh
Page 1 of 1
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.